Waiting for news of Cancun… $100 billion at stake (by 2020)

What happened through the last long night of the Cancun talks?

The most recent news I can find suggests the Greens are partly happy, which means more money must be going to flow from the people to the bureaucratic machinery, though nothing appears to be confirmed. Ponder the power of 100 billion dollar pledges. It buys a lot of PR advertising and school propaganda, and creates millions of active patrons as jobs and industries are established that are wholly dependent on keeping the big-scare-campaign going. The ambit claim of “1.5% of GDP” appears to have been dropped.

The saving grace of this fixed monetary commitment ($100b vs 1.5%) , if it is confirmed (and if you can call it a “grace” of any sorts), is that by 2020, $100 billion may not buy much, thanks to rampant inflation on the way. Feel the relief?

See UPDATE 2 (at the bottom): It appears nothing has been signed, and the future promises are just more “talks”. But, $100 billion has been pledged each year …? If so, that’s a win for the climate industrial complex and the bureaucrats, but will be painted as a quiet partial step forward. It’s not as big as it could have been, but $100 billion per annum is a major win in anyone’s books. Even if they didn’t get world government this time, their mission can only be advanced by this. Does it start now, or in 2020?

UPDATE #3 (from Comments):

The trustee is the World Bank (not… the UN?), and “We’re talking about a [combined] reduction in emissions of 13-16%, and what this means is an increase of more than 4C”. BBC News h/t Richard C (NZ)

Climate draft proposes $100 bln financing

The draft moves forward a pledge that wealthy nations made last year in the Copenhagen Accord of $100 billion per year in financing, starting in 2020, for developing countries. The money would help developing countries mitigate emissions and adapt to the worst effects of global warming, like heatwaves, droughts and stronger storms.

The text also sets up a “green climate fund” to help channel some of the money to developing countries.

The text drops a demand from developing countries that rich countries offer 1.5 percent of their gross domestic product in financing.

The draft aimed to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F), and would deliver “adequate and predictable support, including financial resources” for developing countries that protect their forests.

To become a U.N. decision, the draft, agreed by groups of ministers, would have to be cleared by a conference of about 192 countries at a full meeting in Cancun, Mexico, Friday or Saturday.

Climate draft text signals breakthroughs

Negotiators made breakthroughs in key areas of contention at the Cancun climate talks late Friday, producing a draft text that commits all countries to step up their efforts to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius and leaves open the possibility of new commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

In a surprise move, as delegates were preparing for a gruelling overnight session, Mexican chairwoman Patricia Espinosa released draft texts of agreements approved by 50 countries that were charged with finding compromises to what many believed were becoming intractable positions. But the agreements fell well short of an overarching accord that could form the basis of a new treaty, and it remained unclear whether it would pass the full convention.

1.5 degrees is apparently the new target for witchdoctors to aim for (which, by the sound of news forecasts on December weather, would seem very achievable with no action or spending at all). The word “consider” makes this a wish-list item.

The proposed agreements would endorse the view that “climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time” and requires “long-term co-operative action” in order to prevent catastrophic impacts across the planet. And they pledged that countries would consider strengthening the long-term goal to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees, something demanded by small island states who fear the 2-degree target would leave their countries literally under water as a result of rising sea levels.

Monckton’s warning appears to be apt: $100 billion a year by 2020

Under the proposed deal, countries would set up a “Green Climate Fund” that would manage most of the $100-billion (U.S.) per year promised to poor countries by the developed world; set up technology-transfer programs to help them adopt renewable energy technologies, and fund projects to reduce deforestation and encourage tree planting.

Time for Canadians to weep:

Following the lead of the United States, Canada has pledged to reduce its emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. Mr. Baird told the summit the Canadian government is working to meet that commitment, though it has yet to produce a plan to get there. Ottawa has introduced new emission standards for automobiles and is moving on ships, airplanes and heavy trucks; it has also promised to pass regulations that will force the power sector to end its reliance on high-emitting coal over the next two decades. But it has not regulated the fastest growing source of emissions: Alberta’s booming oil sands.

The Copenhagen Accord appears to be the “winner” (what a surprise)

The United States had insisted the Cancun summit must recognize the political agreement reached in Copenhagen last year, including the emissions pledges. Backed by Canada, the Americans were also insistent that China, India, Brazil and other major developing countries agree to have their plans to reduce the rate of emissions growth monitored and verified by the international community. The developing countries have agreed to a review process, though one that is not as rigorous as the regime for developed countries.

Australia owes nearly $900 million (mostly to Russia) from the last “agreement”

SOMEBODY has now put a price on the symbolic act of Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong flying to Bali within days of Labor’s election in 2007 and ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. It’s a potential extra $870 million from Australian taxpayers. There’s no certainty this will be the actual cost, if there is any, in 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol period finishes and nations are called to account for failing to meet their international legal obligations.

Under Kyoto, we were given an allowance of 1990 baseline plus 8%, and we are on target for 9% over by 2012. We would have to buy carbon credits for any emissions over the allowance. Countries under the allowance could sell carbon credits, so effectively we would be transferring the money to Russia (the main beneficiary).

In the real world, cold weather kills

Meanwhile, record lows are striking day after day in Cancun, but the cold is much more serious elsewhere. Homeless people in northern climates are dying, one in particular in a car as he tried to sleep under an electric blanket that stopped working when the car battery went flat. Older people who been caught outside after falling have succumbed to hypothermia. The aftermath of major widespread flooding is still affecting the Eastern side of Australia. It has forced evacuations, and in some cases people have drowned caught in cars on flooded causeways.

UPDATE: Still no confirmation

NEWS from the ABC this morning (thanks Val Malkus) — there are few signs of consensus.

In Cancun, there are frantic negotiations going on as countries try to salvage the climate talks and find at least some areas of agreement. But it’s now just a matter of hours before the talks are due to end and there are few signs of any consensus.

(This ABC bulletin was filed “Saturday afternoon”, but looks like old news from Friday afternoon in Mexico. She talks about it being late afternoon in Mexico, which it isn’t yet.)

UPDATE 2: ABC 6 hours ago: … looks like the big result is “talks to set up Kyoto II”.

Nothing concrete appears to have come out of Cancun, but neither is there a sign that anyone is getting rational.

Faced with the growing prospect that a new climate treaty is distant, the European Union has led calls to extend the Kyoto Protocol.

Japan has adamantly opposed a new Kyoto round, pointing out that the treaty named after its ancient capital covers only 30 per cent of global emissions because China and the United States are not part of it.

Russia, a major exporter of carbon-intense fossil fuels, has backed Japan’s position, while Canada was also seen as a quiet supporter.

In a compromise, the proposed Cancun agreement would call for talks to set up a second period of the Kyoto Protocol but not oblige members of the treaty – such as Japan and Russia – to be part of the new round.

The European Union, Japan and the United States have led pledges of $100 billion a year for poor nations, which many experts say are already suffering a rise in floods and drought as temperatures steadily mount.

A broader issue is just how wealthy nations would raise the money, with some negotiators advocating levies on airplane and shipping fuel.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Waiting for news of Cancun... $100 billion at stake (by 2020), 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

“The Green Climate Fund will initially use the World Bank as a trustee – as the US, EU and Japan had demanded – while giving oversight to a new body balanced between developed and developing countries.”

“What concerns us most is that a list is going to be drawn up [of emission-cutting pledges countries have made], and it will not be commitments under the Kyoto Protocol,” said delegation chief Pablo Solon.

“We’re talking about a [combined] reduction in emissions of 13-16%, and what this means is an increase of more than 4C.

“Responsibly, we cannot go along with this – this would mean we went along with a situation that my president has termed ‘ecocide and genocide’,” Mr Solon said.

I’m thinking some delegations at least are becoming somewhat circumspect about the whole shambles. No one wants to be the first one to say “stuff it. It’s a load of cobblers.” Offering money is easier since at some future time the money can be withdrawn. Signing pledges and setting emission quotas is far too binding as Rudd and Julia will find out . Reneging on debts is easy as well; just ask Adolf Hitler.

2020 is interesting too as I would envisage that by then even the most evangelical warmer will realise the world is not heating too much and the seas have actually fallen a little bit. The new Maldives airport will be above water level but no one will be flying in because of the taxes on avtur.

The talks at Cancun have to be held according the UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC). This should serve as a reminder what the Convention is about:

Article 2 OBJECTIVE
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

Article 3 PRINCIPLES
In their actions to achieve the objective of the Convention and to implement its provisions, the Parties shall be guided, inter alia, by the following:
1. The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.
2. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties…….
3-5.

The PRINCILES are restricted to “achieve the objective of the Convention” namely: “stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentration”. It is therefore questionable
___whether the state parties have a mandate to “limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius”, or
__a mandate to set-up and manage a “GREEN FUND”.

To remind! Cancun talks about CLIMATE, but the UNFCCC does not say what CLIMATE is. Instead it defines “climate change” and “climate system”:
· Para. 2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
· Para. 3. “Climate system” means the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions.http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202-open-letter.html

Both explanations explain nothing. It is nonsense to say: Climate change means the change of climate, while ‘climate system’ does not say anything more as the interaction of nature. Science is using layman’s terms without being able or willing to define them in a scientifically reasonable manner, or not to use them at all. A detailed discussion is available at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/

But these questions are on the table for almost 20 years, but who cares?

I see the words “draft” , “consider” ,etc used alot so that gives me hope that it really does not mean much. I agree with Lawrie @ 4 –2020 is a long way away for something that is meant to be the ” great challenge of our time” and we are meant to be acting now if the great catastrophy is going to be avoided.
Economically the world is going to be very different in 10 years time.

All the while Mr Assange is providing a welcome distraction so that Cancun delegates can float one in under the media radar?

Of course Labor would have to be in power for a few more months to ensure legislation goes through to support the rorting to tinpot states and fatcat UN bureaucrats… what’s the chances given julia’s endless stream of blunders?

in the USA the president can make all the commitments to the hoax he wants. The House of Representatives must approve. And since their first order of business was to shut down the hoers committee, I doubt anything but promises will be forth coming.

It doesn’t matter if it is $100 or $100 billion.
There is a big gap between pledging money and actually handing it over. Especially if the handover is on the other side of the election cycle. This sounds to me simply like rebadged developing country aid.
Kind of like Simon Crean with his regional development fund…. turns out everywhere is a region even downtown Canberra.

But the deal is a lot less than the comprehensive agreement that many countries wanted at last year’s Copenhagen summit and continue to seek. It leaves open the question of whether any of its measures, including emission cuts, will be legally binding.

“What we have now is a text that, while not perfect, is certainly a good basis for moving forward,” said chief US negotiator Todd Stern.

His Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, sounded a similar note and added: “The negotiations in the future will continue to be difficult.”

Cancun, however, did not achieve the comprehensive, all-encompassing deal that many activists and governments want.

Just watch the Green Climate Fund (which is intended to raise and disburse $100bn (£64bn) a year by 2020 to protect poor nations against climate impacts and assist them with low-carbon development) get squandered on UN bureaucratic administration costs rather than on helping poor countries!.

A report tells us that a $100 billion Jungle Bunny Bribe has been agreed – otherwise known as the “Green Climate Fund” – to be paid over by 2020. No doubt a goodly proportion will be be passed to the Mercedes dealers of the developing world to keep the ruling élites and their NGO pals in the comfort they most certainly do not deserve.

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The poor performance of some sectors aiming to slow climate change is pushing money managers to cast further afield for investments that both carry green credentials and are likely to post better returns.

Some renewable-energy stocks, such as those in solar and wind industries, have fallen spectacularly in recent years, belying hopes that they were poised to break out.

And….

Carbon capture coal firm Powerfuel calls in administrators

• Powerfuel £635m short of money required for CCS scheme
• Owner of Hatfield coal mine put up for sale
Administrators have been called in to sell the assets of Powerfuel, which owns Hatfield colliery near Doncaster and planned to build a clean-coal demonstration plant in Britain.

Yep, it’s all going swimmingly for the wannabe *planet savers. All they have to do now is figure out how to save themselves from themselves.

My suggestion? First they need to extricate their craniums from their culard, the rest will come easy.

A little while ago I got cosy with radiative physics, absorption, and equipartition and things made a lot more sense after I wrapped my head around equipartion.

If CO2 absorbs to extinction in its main peak within tens of metres from the ground then adding more CO2 merely shortens that distance right? If the CO2 molecules were already absorbing all the available IR energy in its absorption bands by some particular distance then I can’t see how adding more CO2 molecules leads to an increase in temperature. Assuming radiation from the surface remains constant there’s no more energy finding its way into the atmosphere than there was before. Yes it’s a GHG but it already seems to be doing all the work it can. What gives? Am I missing something?

Chris Huhne, the Climate Change Secretary, has been accused of misleading the United Nations climate conference in Cancun by falsely attributing natural events to man-made global warming.

In his speech to the conference, he described how flood damage in Britain had trebled in the past decade and gave warning of “worse to come”.

His opening words referred to an “alarming pattern of extreme weather events” in Britain, adding that insurers had paid out £4.5 billion for flood damage in the past ten years compared with £1.5 billion in the previous decade.

Mr Huhne went on to assure the audience of national leaders, environment ministers and delegates from 193 countries that the British Government would always be “guided by the science”.

But The Times has identified the source of Mr Huhne’s figures and been told by the Met Office that they cannot be used as evidence of climate change.

The increase in payments for flood damage was set out in a report last month by the Association of British Insurers (ABI). It made clear that all of the increase was attributable to a single event, the floods of summer 2007, which cost £3 billion.

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “We cannot attribute any individual event to climate change because the natural variability is so huge. It would be misleading to say that the summer floods of 2007 were caused by climate change.

“Twenty years is also very short to look for a signal of man-made climate change.”

Mr Huhne did not mention that the 2007 floods had distorted the figures but suggested the increase was part of a growing pattern.

A spokesman for the ABI said: “We were careful not to blame the increase on climate change. We are not climatologists. The reality is that we always get episodes of bad weather in this country.”

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think-tank which questions whether man-made emissions will cause rapid warming, said Mr Huhne had misled the audience by failing to acknowledge that growth in wealth was the main reason for the increase in the amount paid out by insurers.

Benny Peiser, the foundation’s director, said: “There is ample research showing that there is no link between warming and an increase in disaster losses.

“There is evidence that disasters are getting more expensive but this is to do with population growth and an increase in wealth. If you damage a house today, it costs more than the same flood would have cost years ago.”

He said Mr Huhne had a duty, when speaking on behalf of the Government at an international conference, to use data supported by robust science.

“Unfortunately, politicians like making these kinds of dire predictions. But Mr Huhne speaks for Britain and he shouldn’t be doing this.”

A spokesman for Mr Huhne declined to comment on why he had failed to make clear that the increase was due to the 2007 floods.

He said: “Of course you can’t attribute one event to climate change but the ABI have been clear that climate change is set to increase flood risk.

“He was making the simple point that climate change will bring more extreme weather events and insurance payouts and therefore premiums will increase.”

Earlier this week, it emerged that a draft of the proposed global agreement on cutting emissions falsely claimed that it was “unequivocal” that man-made emissions had caused most of the warming in the past half century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asked the UN to correct the text, saying that the link to man-made emissions was highly likely but it could not be certain.

The Met Office has also admitted this week that some claims made about the impacts of climate change, such as the risk of sea levels rising by 2m (6.5ft) by 2100 and of the Gulf Stream slowing down, had been exaggerated.

So is Cancun a success, a failure or is it simply irrelevant? It certainly doesn’t change what any of us are facing except that Australia gets $100 billion worse off.

The UN still has its grand plan for ruling the world all written out right down to the last tiny detail. They will certainly try to create a worldwide crisis in which nations will cry out for the UN to save them.

We are bankrupt right now by any reasonable standard. How many others are in that state or rushing toward it? Something is going to give soon and it will not be pretty.

Since we are already well below the 2C from anthropogenic sources for as far into the future as can be reasonably predicted, then the goals are already met and there’s no need to spend/redistribute any money. Isn’t this the end game they built in to save face as science kicks their butts?

At this stage (he said, with the uneasy sense that he might have one foot planted firmly on thin air) it looks like just another Nice Guys Pledgefest. Yes, of course we’ll cough up $Xmillion dollars over the next five generations. Cross my heart and hope to die.
Then two or three years down the track, scolds and reproaches because the pledges haven’t been fulfilled.

As to the the distinction between billion and billion, it should be noted that there are countries in which billion means a million-fold million, e.g. Holland and Germany. I know because I was brought up in the Netherlands, but taught at The British School (no end of confusion). See the link:

So I see we agreed to join in a US$100 billion (short form) a year inome redistribution from the developed world to countries largely run by corrupt governments, mediated by the corrupt global government we call the UN:

This is a “modest” donation? And how shall we be raising this money, pray tell? Oh that’s right, we intend to introduce a “price on carbon” according to the Red Queen*, and should anyone disagree it will be “Off with their head!”

At the same time it is patently obvious that Joolya, fresh from her blunder talking about Assange’s guilt, is now fumbling with basic economics … again:

“Unless a carbon price is introduced next year, Australians face a decade of rising electricity prices and the risk of blackouts, Prime Minister Julia Gillard says.”

Now I don’t know, as I only have a Master’s in Economics (Mineral variety), but the only reason we are seeing investment delays AFAIK is because the freaking Labor Government can’t make up their bloody minds. On again off again ETS Rudd, followed by no carbon price to yes carbon price Red Queen is what is delaying investment. If the Libs were in and the threat of a shameless tax were aborted, investment would flow freely. Once again the Red Queen stumbles on basic logic… how stupid does she think her subjects are?

* Not sure this is an apt nickname… I don’t think there’s too much real red left. Her partner is a hairdresser remember… but now I am just being bitchy >.>

• Industrialised country targets are officially recognised under the multilateral process and these countries are to develop low-carbon development plans and strategies and assess how best to meet them, including through market mechanisms, and to report their inventories annually.
Developing country actions to reduce emissions are officially recognised under the multilateral process. A registry is to be set up to record and match developing country mitigation actions to finance and technology support from by industrialised countries. Developing countries are to publish progress reports every two years.

• Parties meeting under the Kyoto Protocol agree to continue negotiations with the aim of completing their work and ensuring there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods of the treaty.

• The Kyoto Protocols Clean Development Mechanisms has been strengthened to drive more major investments and technology into environmentally sound and sustainable emission reduction projects in the developing world.

• Parties launched a set of initiatives and institutions to protect the vulnerable from climate change and to deploy the money and technology that developing countries need to plan and build their own sustainable futures.

• A total of $30 billion in fast start finance from industrialised countries to support climate action in the developing world up to 2012 and the intention to raise $100 billion in long-term funds by 2020 is included in the decisions.

• In the field of climate finance, a process to design a Green Climate Fund under the Conference of the Parties, with a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries, is established.

• A new Cancún Adaptation Framework is established to allow better planning and implementation of adaptation projects in developing countries through increased financial and technical support, including a clear process for continuing work on loss and damage.

• Governments agree to boost action to curb emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries with technological and financial support.

• Parties have established a technology mechanism with a Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Centre and Network to increase technology cooperation to support action on adaptation and mitigation.

The next Conference of the Parties is scheduled to take place in South Africa, from 28 November to 9 December 2011

“Russia and Japan have secured wording that leaves them a possible route to escape extension of the Kyoto Protocol’s legally binding emission cuts, while strongly implying that the protocol has an effective future – a key demand of developing countries”.

Looks like a whole lot of spin spin spin to me. The post Cancun period was always going to be managed to avoid the Copenhagen haemorrhaging of last year. It all seems designed to give the impression that the wheels are still on and the bus is moving. Nothing is signed and no agreed mechanism – but it’s claimed as a success. By last years standards this was a failure. They aren’t going away.

You see while checking out the comments below the Dan Cass waffle page, I came across a post by (Elise), which in turn was a response to Asceptic, who was critical of the concept of developing countries going straight from energy scarcity to reliable renewable energy, without detouring to dependence on coal.

QUOTE: “Developing nations inside the alliance will have the chance to go straight from energy scarcity to reliable renewable energy, without the costly detour of coal dependence.”

That’s one of those epic phrases that just trips off the tongue, does’nt it. Like controllable fusion or extended lifespans, we’re almost there just another few decades and we’ll have it cracked.
In the meantime, shutdown the coal fired generating stations and the power grid. We can all live like we did in the past.

You’re kidding, right. Or is it you simply don’t see reality.

Elise then responded with the following flawed post:

Sorry mate, but I think you are not recognising a concept that the economists call “leapfrogging technology”.

If you visit China, you will see that they are indeed bypassing a lot of the industrial history that got the West to current technology. They are installing the latest steel mills with the latest process control, the latest pharmaceuticals processing plants, etc, etc.

They aren’t working their way through, starting from the industrial revolution year-by-year. They are just taking modern state-of-the-art, off the shelf. If they can’t buy the technology, then they buy the company (e.g. Volvo). They aren’t starting with the Model-T and working forwards.

As such, they may well indeed just take the latest clean technology, rather than going via 80+% coal-fired power, as we have done.

They may just be using a limited amount of coal-fired power as a bridging step, while they get the rest going, to stop the masses from getting restless. Australian companies may extrapolate the current demand curve at their peril?

Do you imagine our inscrutible oriental customers would want to be dependent on our expensive exports forever?

New technology will take hold first where there is an absence of cheap alternatives for the old technology. China doesn’t have enough oil & gas, or coal, for domestic consumption. Would they be motivated to work the angles to get us to pay them for developing alternatives…???

Thirty Six hours ago I posted a reply to Elise, While the following may not be a verbatim copy of my post it is a reasonable representation.

I replied:

Elise you say: If you visit China, you will see that they are indeed bypassing a lot of the industrial history that got the west to current technology.
As such, they may well indeed just take the latest clean technology, rather than going via 80+% coal-fired power, as we have done.

Now for some facts:
1) From a BBC report of March 2005, Coal built China – and fuels its relentless growth today. Eighty per cent of China’s electricity comes from coal, and there are plans for 544 new coal-fired power stations to meet an insatiable demand for energy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4330469.stm

2) China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined,
You go on to say: China doesn’t have enough oil & gas, or coal, for domestic consumption.

More facts:
Coal accounts for about 70% of China’s total energy consumption. The development and production of the coal industry provides
stability in China’s economic growth. The coal resources in China have been exploited since 476 BC, and it is estimated that even
with all the years of coal exploration, China has total coal deposits of 4, 490 billion tons which are as deep as 2,000 vertical
metres.http://www1.american.edu/ted/chincoal.htm

A little extra googling, something you should have done before posting, will tell you this is in excess of 11% of all coal reserves.

I posted an incorrect link to the second quote, maybe this is why they have failed to print my reply, a simple email from them, and I would have corrected my error. When I realised my mistake I contacted the moderator with the correct link, and a request for an explanation for their failure to print my post. At this stage still no sign of either my post or receipt of an email.

Almost imediatly
I posted the above, I followed it up with a second post shortly afterward. It read something like this.

Further to my previous post.

China’s Wind Farms come with a catch: China’s ambition to create “green cities” powered by huge wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired power plants need to be installed as well.
This is to safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html

As well as the rapid expansion of coal fired power stations, china is also accelerating their nuclear program.
• Mainland China has 13 nuclear power reactors in operation, 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.
• Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world’s most advanced, to give more than a tenfold increase in nuclear capacity to 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

Do you still believe China to be as Green as you previously posted. I don’t.

Is there any evidence that the global warming trend from the little ice age to present has led to any undesirable climate/weather change? The underlying IPCC assumption is that AGW climate change spawns “bad weather” – is that just another marketing scam or is it grounded in weather science?

What if someone published a paper showing that (imaginary) global warming would led to more moderate and stable weather!

Ok I think I’ve got this. Because CO2 is weakly absorbent “in the wings” it doesn’t absorb all the available energy at those wavelengths so adding more CO2 molecules will allow a logarithmically increasing amount of energy to be absorbed.

Some articles I read suggested 99% of all available energy is absorbed within ten metres of the surface. I also noticed that there seemed to be a lot of contention about how much absorption takes places in the wings, some papers suggesting more, others suggesting less than that predicted by the Lorentz profile. It looks like another area where the science is far from settled.

The only historical evidence is that mankind has always thrived during naturally warm periods while civilization stagnates during periods of natural cooling. If by ‘bad weather’, you mean more rainfall, which is generally considered good for agriculture (as are elevated CO2 levels), then yes, warming causes more weather. But this isn’t really the point anyway, the question is what role, if any, man’s CO2 emissions have increased the expected, natural warming coming out of the LIA. Warmists say most warming since the LIA was caused by man, while skeptics say little, if any, of the warming is a direct consequence of man’s CO2 emissions.

Is there any grounds for thinking that additional energy in the (god I hesitate to use this term) “climate system” would result in more stability, a more ordered system? I’m thinking along the lines of water flowing from a tap, at low volume/speed it’s turbulent, chaotic and unpredictable but at high volume/speed it’s ordered and predictable.

I can think of other systems that tend to become more ordered when more energy is added. Thoughts?

So lots of nebulous “agreements”. Forgive my Sanguine Languor (no animus implied ) but it all looks like they just agreed to agree somewhere down the road a ways. Money may or may not exchange hands. Every faction would like to say, “We got something.” But what they got looks like what in the software world is called, “Vapor Ware,” all promise and no substance. Obama better find $100 billion fast or he’ll find his wings clipped by the House of Representatives.

In the meantime, as Monkton has said, the real threat is already in place. As Baa pointed out (I paraphrase), they’ll take their time waiting for the fatal mistake and then pounce.

Virtually all of the climate systems energy is stored in the oceans as a temperature differential across the thermocline, between the deep ocean cold and warm surface waters. Even though this quantification of energy storage is far less than the pedantic view of stored energy as all of that required to bring all of the oceans up to their current temperature, it’s still far larger than the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere, which is primarily in the form of water lifted against the force of gravity, pressure differentials and as an electric potential in the capacitance between the cloud and the surface and the cloud and the ionosphere. To the extent that the atmosphere contains more energy, this is in the form of more clouds, as the clear sky stores even less energy, but I can’t say that this affects the stability of the climate, either way.

Sorry about the url length but it is a great text. The thing about CO2 absorption is that it does take place near the ground and then Local Thermodynamic Equilibriums [LTE] are formed which are the basis of convective uplift; the definition of LTE according to Grant Petty is a parcel of air where the rate of collision frequency is much higher than the frequency of absorption/emission; this means that inside the parcel of air which is the LTE there is a thermal equilibrium and no further absorption and emission takes place until the convective uplift carries the parcel to an atmospheric level where the internal temperature of the LTE is equivalent to the external air so absorption and emission can occur; however at that level, about 6-8 klms, with the relevant wavelengths already absorbed to extinction at the lower heights, it is emission which takes place and the energy depleted falls.

As for the issue of absorption at the CO2 ‘wings’ or peripheral wavelength frequencies; as Baa says increasing CO2 will increase absorption at the CO2 wing frequencies but this is severely limited by the surface emitting frequencies and the convective effect based on LTE formation I describe above; as for pressure broadening this will not occur at temepratures or pressures ever experienced on Earth as even the rabett notes:

MARK COLVIN: One of the big sticking points at the climate summit in Cancun is how best to distribute the $30 billion promised under the Copenhagen Accord. The money, known as Fast Start Finance, is designed to help poor countries reduce their own carbon emissions and protect themselves against climate impact for the next two years.

In Cancun, the Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says Australia’s commitment will go to fund projects in developing and emerging economies. But the bigger emerging economies, Brazil, India, China and South Africa say they don’t want the money. They insist the funding should go to the most vulnerable countries in Africa and the small island states.

Jennifer Macey reports.

JENNIFER MACEY: Fast Start Finance is designed to pay poor countries to build levees to protect against rising sea levels, grow drought-proof crops, or stop illegal logging. The $30 billion is meant to flow to developing countries over the next three years.

This year in Cancun, environment ministers from around the world have been doling out their contributions.

GREG COMBET: Apart from the domestic action we are taking the Australian Government is also endeavouring to play a constructive role internationally. Today Australia announced further allocations under the $599 million of Australia’s committed Fast Start Financing.

JENNIFER MACEY: The bulk of Australia’s $600 million will go to adaptation projects in the Pacific, South East Asia and Africa. Thirty two million will go to Indonesia to stop deforestation. Ten million is funding for renewable energy projects in poor countries. And another 10 million will help developing and emerging economies use carbon markets to cut their emissions.

GREG COMBET: Australia is delivering on Fast Start and we will continue to provide regular and transparent information on the delivery of our Fast Start funds.

JENNIFER MACEY: But there are some big and healthy economies, like Brazil, South Africa, India and China, that are still classified as emerging. They go by the acronym BASIC and they say they don’t want any of the Fast Start money.

India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, told reporters in Cancun that the money should go to the least developed countries, or LDCs.

JAIRAM RAMESH: On Fast Start Finance I want to reiterate that all the BASIC countries have voluntarily said that they are not candidates for Fast Start Finance. This $30 billion pledged at Copenhagen for 2010-2011 and 2012 was meant for Africa, meant for the small island states and was meant for LDCs.

JENNIFER MACEY: And he says much of the funding, which was supposed to start flowing this year, has been slow and sporadic.

JAIRAM RAMESH: Number two is the need to accelerate disbursements under the Fast Start Finance. So far, the Fast Start Finance has neither been fast nor has it started and there has hardly been any finance. And Fast Start Finance was an essential part of the Copenhagen Accord.

JENNIFER MACEY: The climate change adviser with Oxfam Australia, Kelly Dent is also in Cancun. She says Fast Start Finance is crucial to building trust between rich and poor countries. But she says the bigger developing countries like India and China don’t need extra help.

KELLY DENT: We are concerned and that’s one of the reasons we want to see a fair climate fund established so that money does go where it’s most needed and not, for example, to the larger BASIC countries who have the capacity to be able to pay for their emissions reduction and also for adaptation.

JENNIFER MACEY: Aid groups want the Fast Start Finance to be new and additional money. Kelly Dent says Oxfam commends Australia’s allocation of Fast Start funding. But she’s concerned that the money has come from the foreign aid budget.

KELLY DENT: And this is money that we’ve needed to fight poverty, we need money to fight poverty, we need money to fight climate change. So we have some concerns about it.

JENNIFER MACEY: Where should it be coming from?

KELLY DENT: We think that it should be coming from money that isn’t earmarked for poverty alleviation. So obviously from the federal budget but not from money that’s earmarked for international aid and development. Climate change is a separate issue.

What we like about the announcement is that it is very transparent about where the money’s coming from. We have seen 50 per cent of the money go to adaptation in poor countries and 50 per cent towards mitigation, this is towards emissions reduction. This is significant because previous money has mostly gone to reducing emissions. So the fact that a lot is going to adaptation is extremely significant. So we like that. And we’ve also seen a significant amount of money going to the Pacific which is also very important.

JENNIFER MACEY: Oxfam’s Kelly Dent says some countries have been double counting their Fast Start Finance, that is making the same announcement twice. She says this doesn’t bode well for the larger long-term climate fund of $100 billion by 2020 and that’s why international charities are pushing for any new climate aid fund to be managed by the United Nations.

MARK COLVIN: Jennifer Macey.

In a statement tonight Greg Combet’s office said none of Australia’s Fast Start funding was going directly to Brazil, India, South Africa or China and that it is drawn from a growing aid budget and does not divert funding from existing development programs.

The ‘wings’ are really irrelevant. The 15u CO2 line is thousands of small, very narrow, closely spaced lines, moreover; what we are concerned with is the magnitude of each individual line. Even the ‘water vapor continuum’ absorption is a series of many, weak lines. A necessary property to use HITRAN line data is that the integration from tail to tail of the line shape is always 1, independent of the shape used. Different shapes work better for extreme PVT conditions, but in most cases, the 99%+ tail to tail integration spans no more tha a few tenths of a micron for any shape. The effect of using the wrong line shape is that a 15.11u photon will be absorbed, rather than a 15.12u photon, but the total absorbed energy is for all intents and purposes, the same.

“Today Australia announced further allocations under the $599 million of Australia’s committed Fast Start Financing.”

“The bulk of Australia’s $600 million will go to adaptation projects in the Pacific, South East Asia and Africa. Thirty two million will go to Indonesia to stop deforestation. Ten million is funding for renewable energy projects in poor countries. And another 10 million will help developing and emerging economies use carbon markets to cut their emissions.”

“Ten million is funding for renewable energy projects in poor countries.”

thanks for giving me something to grin about amidst this enveloping madness, laughed my brains out,( trying to poke the remnants back in with a stick as i write, not easy ) you should take your angry pills more often. cheers

Simply gather enough denizens living near the coasts and have them publicly make a lot of noise of how they will soon be “climate refugees” with no place to live and no possible means of supporting themselves as a result of the “climate criminals” in Western countries who refuse to pay their fair share of supporting these people in perpetuity.

Have them build huts on the shore that will collapse with the rising tide to demonstrate how “devastating” climate change is already upon them, and have some models to show how the rest of the country will suffer the same fate within about two years unless free money pours in by the bargeload to alleviate their pain

We’re working on that
——————————————————————————————————————–Effects Of Climate Change On The Nelson-Tasman Region
Cawthron Report 1699

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Climate changes expected over the next century will have significant implications for our coastal towns and infrastructure, will degrade or destroy natural habitats and valued ecosystems, and will impact on industries that generate GDP of about $1 billion for the region. Impacts arise through direct loss of land, habitat and assets; changes in growing conditions and site suitability; and shifts in species distribution, including crops and desirable species and pests, diseases and undesirable species.

Unless there are significant reductions in global emissions by 2020, specific effects are likely
to include:

• If sea level rises 1.9 m in accordance with some forecasts, large parts of central Nelson and The Wood would be inundated, Nelson airport is at risk, and significant parts of Tahunanui would be underwater. Motueka would be severely affected.

• Significant parts of Farewell Spit, the Boulder Bank, and the Waimea Estuary would be submerged, impacting important ecosystems and iconic landscapes.

• Ratepayers will bear the costs to protect or relocate Nelson community assets that are vulnerable to flooding.

• The Maitai River currently overflows its banks during the highest tides and any increase, even before the full 1.9 m is realised, will exacerbate this phenomenon.

• Current winter temperatures mean the region is largely untroubled by pests such as mosquitoes, blowflies, termites, jellyfish, and wasps, but with climate change it will become easier for pests such as these to invade the Nelson-Tasman region.

• Crop diseases such as fungi and viruses may penetrate into the region where currently they are excluded by lower temperatures. For instance Botrytis, a mould that causes disease of grape vines, is more prevalent in warm, damp conditions.

• Despite an expected increase in rainfall, intervening drought conditions are also expected to become worse. Drought represents a stress to many crops, and dried ground also has reduced capability to absorb water, leading to increased flooding when rain does arrive, and increased erosion.

• Activities enjoyed by tourists, such as walking, fishing, sailing, seakayaking, and skiing, are all vulnerable to the effects of climate change, both in terms of lost opportunity and reduction in the quality of the experience as coastal environments are degraded and the frequency of storm events increases.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Will that do to qualify for an OZ handout?

I’m still abit confused about this 2020 date for the $100 bill/yr. If this is when it starts (ie. it is going to take 9 years for them to work where it comes from and how to use it) then these politicians and beaurocrats are just just playing games. The majority of them will not be in their current positions
( or anywhere near them) in 2020 so they can say anything they like now as they will not have to account for anything that goes wrong
( not that they would know anything about accountability anyway)

Māori have a special relationship with the land, waterways and other natural resources. This is expressed through kaitiakitanga.

Māori also have significant interests in land management through their ownership and management interests in large areas of pastoral farmland, and exotic and indigenous forests. Their ownership of rural land is expected to increase as Treaty of Waitangi claims are progressively settled, especially in the Central North Island.

Climate change presents considerable challenges to all landowners and managers, but particularly to Māori. Many areas of Māori land are steep and in regions vulnerable to storms and erosion; these lands will be even more exposed and vulnerable with the predicted arrival of more frequent and severe storms, and more frequent droughts in the east of New Zealand. Taking action to adapt to climate change is therefore critical.

This discussion document proposes some options to help land managers and land owners adapt to a changing climate and reduce agricultural emissions. It also proposes options for encouraging the planting of more forests to act as carbon sinks, and to discourage deforestation (defined as the conversion of a forested area to another land use).

The Climate Change and Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations project was initiated by the Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute (NIARI) at The Evergreen State College (Olympia, Wash.) in 2006. Its purpose is to document the existing effects of climate change on Indigenous peoples and their homelands in Pacific Rim countries, describes examples of Indigenous nation responses to local circumstances and at the international level, and recommends future paths for Indigenous nation governments to consider. Particular emphasis is given to discussing options for Indigenous nations to join together to influence the global discourse on strategies to address climate change and the causes of global warming and adaptation strategies in response to its inevitable impacts. The climate change research includes participation by Maori in Aotearoa (New Zealand), Native Alaskans, First Nations in Western Canada, and U.S. tribal nations in the Pacific Basin states.

The Climate Change study is intended to support an international strategy for the development of an Indigenous nation-to-nation Pacific Rim treaty agreement, signed in 2007 in the Lummi Nation by indigenous government representatives from the U.S., Alaska, Canada, Australia and Aotearoa (New Zealand). The United League of Indigenous Nations Treaty serves as a structure to address major issues and challenges that are common to the nations including, most particularly joint action plans that address the impacts of climate change on Indigenous nations of the Pacific Rim.

Evergreen State College faculty Alan Parker (NIARI Director) and Zoltan Grossman collaborated in organizing and compiling the research for the 2006 NIARI report Climate Change and Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations: A Report to the Leadership of Indigenous Nations (2 MB). They were joined by Tulalip tribal natural resource staff Terry Williams and Preston Hardison, Maori environmental scientist Brett Stephenson, faculty at Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi (Maori University) and Evergreen graduate students. The 81-page report offers key recommendations to Indigenous nation leadership on possible strategies to confront, mitigate or adapt to the impacts of climate change:

1. Educate tribal membership on the present and future effects of climate change on their own homelands.

2. Secure sources of fresh water now to meet future needs of tribal communities located in drought-impacted areas.

3. Secure a future source of food stocks, long-term storage capacity and production capabilities for crops that can adapt to climate change.

New Zeeland has given the world at least one fine gift having to do with the Māori. I got out my Christmas music yesterday and there was my disk with one of the finest female operatic voices of all time, Kiri Te Kanawa. What a pleasure to listen to her sing.

The UN has to be almost rated level pegging with the League of Nations. I know this is way off topic but it should be said. The UN was set up just prior to the end of WW2. One of its principal aims was to prevent wars or intervene in wars. With USA involved it was felt this should have a chance of success. But in June, 1967 what happened? The Arab nations around Israel entered a pact to invade and destroy it. Egypt even asked for the few UN troops to move aside to allow its forces to move up to Israel’s border. This, they did. But Israel did not wait and destroyed all Arab air forces on the ground. Without air cover it was easy for Arab tanks, armour and infantry to be sitting ducks. So Israel won huge areas of land and Jerusalem. If the Arab nations had simply given their armed forces a month’s leave in June 1967 there would be no moaning about wanting the bits still held by Israel. In my opinion it should be a case of losers weeper, winners keepers. So what is my point? Simply that here was a classic case of belligerency being ignored by the UN. Only in Korea and a couple of other places did the UN ever seriously act. This same lazy attitude exists in all departments of the UN. If they do get hold of more money re’ climate then expect nothing but disarray and a mess of the books. The money will go everywhere except to where the idealists think. Maybe that might be good. If the UN makes a mess of handling money the way they do preventing wars then we have a bit less to worry about.

As an agrarian economy New Zealand is highly dependent on its bee population to pollinate food crops and grasses.

The increase in AGW from the developed nations, and the resulting 0.7% increase in global temperatures, has demonstrated a direct correlation with on onset of a plague of Varroa Bee Mites. This insidious mite, which previously was unknown within New Zealand, that has decimated the bee population throughout the country.

It is not now possible for the Varroa Bee Mite to be eradicated, without destroying the few remaining bees. This is an urgent problem, requiring hundreds of millions to be invested in research and ongoing mitigation processes.

I have received a reply from Proffessor Grant Seuiker of the University of East Anglia to this very same question sometime back. He said…

“It is true that it may take ~3.3 weeks to hand over $1,000,000, however the act of handing over coins, albeit with a known mass, uniformly hitherto one at a time non-stop for 3.3 weeks introduces unknown factors such as muscle fatigue, errors in coin handling and distractions of known and unknown origin.

Policy makers need sound scientific advice to efficiently and effectively formulate strategies for the purposes of handing over monies to developing nations in the form of aid for the development of sustainable and low carbon energy production in the light of unprecedented and unequivocle (sic) climate change problems facing the world.

To that end, our university is at the forefront of assisting developed nations acquiring the neccessary scientific advice.
I would be happy to initiate research into this urgent and important problem of how to efficiently and effectively hand over millions of dollars of your choosing.

I have attached our banking details for wire transfer of $893,755.63 to facilitate this research.

Dec 2009: Guardian: US bids to break Copenhagen deadlock with support for $100bn climate fund

at the time, it was all about Hillary Clinton coming up with the plan; does anyone recall reading it was George Soros’s idea?

11 Dec 2009: Financial Times Blog: Copenhagen catch-up: Soros’ $100bn plan, divisions between developing countries and EU members
How to find $100bn
Thursday’s main event was a proposal from billionaire financier George Soros that would give poor countries access to a $100bn loan to tackle the effects of climate change, writes Fiona Harvey in the FT…
Soros’ idea is to use an obscure financial instrument known as special drawing rights (SDRs) – a type of basket currency used as an accounting unit as the IMF, and generally held by countries as part of their reserves. Some poor countries and green groups welcomed the idea enthusiastically, but the EU’s lead negotiator was sceptical. The idea will not be decided on at Copenhagen, but may form part of future discussions…http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/12/11/copenhagen-catch-up-soros-100bn-plan-divisions-between-developing-countries-and-eu-members/

anyway, the $100bn will never be collected nor sent to the poor. it’s words.

pat @ 89: “anyway, the $100bn will never be collected nor sent to the poor. it’s words.”

If all the so called progressive’s “grand” wealth redistribution plans get implemented, the sum total of all the gross national products will be lucky to be that high. You cannot consume wealth and still have it. Especially if you set things up so that wealth cannot be created.

Taking wealth from those who produce it to give it to those who do not assures that consumption will exceed production. The non-producers of wealth will still not produce more than they consume. The producers of wealth will not be able to produce with less what they did with more. They cannot overcome the deficit.

The global economy will be set on a nosedive trajectory to extinction. The so called progressives know that and that is exactly what they want to happen. Their words to the contrary are empty smoke screens to hide that fact from their victims AND from themselves.

haha ha ha Here we have the whole Green Sustainable Development credo exposed for the hypocrasy that it is.

The Green movement, built on a solid base of 20 something pimply faced university types (think GetUp, 20/20 etc) have been urging us to cut back on our UNSUSTAINABLE way of life, and to help developing countries by providing unprecedented aid.

Whenever we complain about the massive tax increases and government hands in our pockets, these hypocrites would try and take the high moral ground with their feel good sharing caring one world platitudes.

Look at the student riots in London of this past week. What are they rioting about? Cuts of 2.9billion pounds to their sector. Where is this money going? Christopher Booker of The Telegraph explains..

Student fee ‘savings’ will fund windmills in Africa

“The cause of the major political story of last week – the row over tuition fees, students rioting and all – was, as we all know, “public spending cuts”. But how much money does the Government actually hope to save on tuition fees? If the immediate problem is our massive state deficit, it seems odd that the Government should risk such unpopularity, not for any immediate saving, but in the hope that it will get the money back over the next 30 years, as students can afford to repay it.

In the short term, the Government’s own projection as to how much it will save is that the funding of university tuition will be cut by £2.9 billion by 2014. As it happens, £2.9 billion is the sum ring-fenced, by the same public spending review, to be given to developing countries to help them fight global warming with windmills and solar panels. It is also slightly less than the £3 billion by which our public debt is rising every week. These much-vaunted “cuts” are not all we are led to believe.”

JOHN and BRYAN are standing on a street corner in CANCUN. For some strange reason, they are dressed as POLAR BEARS.

JOHN: Morning Bryan.
BRYAN: Morning John.
JOHN: Nice weather.
BRYAN: Bit warm.
JOHN: Global warming.
BRYAN: Climate change
JOHN: Climate disruption
BRYAN: Big warm.
JOHN: Specially since we got off the plane from New York.
BRYAN: Unprecedented.
JOHN: And even more so since we put on these polar bear outfits.
BRYAN: To demonstrate yet again the plight of the North American polar bear in the face of extreme global warming bought about by man’s emissions of greenhouse gases, notably CO2.
JOHN: Yeah.
BRYAN: To the extent that the World Wildlife Fund has declared the Mexican Polar Bear to be a critically endangered species…
JOHN: [Gasp] You don’t mean??!
BRYAN: Yes in a few short years, the only place a Mexican child will come face to face with these magnificent creatures will be in a zoo…
JOHN: A tragic loss of biodiversity resulting from man’s thoughtless pillage of the planet’s resources.
BRYAN: Well put John. I recall reading something similar in a respected scientific journal.
JOHN: Peer reviewed?
BRYAN: Of course. We all know that if the IPCC didn’t like it….
[Together] It didn’t happen.
BRYAN: Exactly. Take, for instance, the Medieval Warming Period.
JOHN: That period from the 10th to the 13th century during which global temperatures reached or exceeded modern day records but with no significant contribution from CO2 or other man-made inputs?
BRYAN: That’s the one. Didn’t happen. Says so in countless peer-reviewed scientific journals. And anyone who claims it did is a denier…
JOHN: Exactly. Didn’t happen. Apart from a few isolated instances, no doubt constrained within strict geographic and temporal boundaries.
BRYAN: Confined to Greenland, Europe, South America, Africa, North America, Asia, Antartica, New Zealand and England? And only for 300 years or so…
JOHN: [Suspiciously] Where did you read that?
BRYAN: Here. [Pulls out Skeptic’s Handbook, link --------]
JOHN: That’s not peer reviewed!
BRYAN: A bloke called Lord Monckton reviewed it. And at least it’s written in English…
JOHN: That’s not the point – the IPCC has written four significant and thoroughly peer-reviewed reports. Thousands of pages of incontrovertible evidence. This “handbook” is only – what – 16 pages long. So the weight of evidence is at least 10,000 to 1 in favour of the IPCC. Obvious!
BRYAN: Dunno.
JOHN: Dunno? Of course you know! You need to know- for the sake of the planet.
BRYAN: Dunno.
JOHN: The Skeptic’s Handbook has been debunked. I’ll show you.
BRYAN: How?
JOHN: I’ll just show you. From the top. Topic #1, amigo.
BRYAN: The missing hotspot.
JOHN: The localised heating in the upper troposphere resulting from absorption of infra-red radiation, said by the IPCC to be a necessary precursor to global warming and irrefutable proof of the effect of man-made CO2 on the earth’s climate?
BRYAN: Yep. It isn’t there.
JOHN: Of course it’s there. Did you check?
BRYAN: Only about a million times.
JOHN: Not very well. Santer found it.
BRYAN: No he didn’t. He found noise that’s not inconsistent with a possibility that maybe it’s there.
JOHN: Good enough.
BRYAN: Why don’t we just use the thermometer readings…
JOHN: Because you’ve got a broken toe.
BRYAN: I don’t have a broken –
[JOHN stamps on his foot]
BRYAN Yeeeowowowow! Owow. You broke my toe!
JOHN: See? Exactly like I told you. Consensus reached. Objection over-ruled. Case dismissed. Skeptic argument debunked. Next question please…
BRYAN: Are you sure?
JOHN : It’s for the planet.
BRYAN: Yeah. For the planet.
JOHN: Next question?
BRYAN: The Vostok ice core data.
JOHN: What about it?
BRYAN: It shows that CO2 rises AFTER global temperatures increase.
JOHN: That’s not possible. Al Gore said so.
BRYAN: Because if CO2 were a driver of climate, then this would automatically establish a runaway greenhouse. The effect of CO2 must be weak or else counterbalanced by other negative feedbacks.
JOHN: I’ve told you that’s not possible.
BRYAN: Then show me the physical evidence that says otherwise.
JOHN: Physical – as in kicking you in the shins?
BRYAN: Aha! A classical error of logic! That was a non sequir…
JOHN: Nope! It was an ad homenium! [Kicks BRYAN in shins.]
BRYAN: Yeeeowowowow! Stop hurting me!
JOHN: Why?
BRYAN: It hurts.
JOHN: Rubbish – I didn’t feel a thing.
BRYAN: No. No. Me, me me! It hurts ME!
JOHN: Pain does that. Besides, it’s all your fault for being a skeptic.
BRYAN: I was just wanting to know – Yeeeowowoow!
[JOHN has kicked BRYAN in the shins again.]
BRYAN: Next question?
JOHN: Next question.

“The climate change taxes have only been going for a couple of years and already the weather has got colder, so the taxes must be working. Strange, I thought it would take longer.
I hope they don’t over do it as I quite like warm weather.”

Both texts – one dealing with Kyoto and a second focusing on ”long-term co-operative action” – simply ”take note” of the emissions targets to be implemented by developed and developing countries under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

While not strictly legally binding, the decision gave legitimacy to those pledges made under the Accord by 85 nations, which account for about 80 per cent of global emissions, to reduce or slow their emissions up to 2020.

Geneva (Switzerland), Dec 7 (IBNS) The sixteenth Conference of the Parties, COP16, aims to cut US$ 26 trillion energy costs by 2030, said a new World Economic Forum report on Tuesday.

The report, developed in partnership with Accenture, was presented on Tuesday at the Green Solutions Event at COP16 in Cancun.

‘The Energy Efficiency: Accelerating the Agenda’ report emphasizes the urgent need for energy efficiency to be at the forefront of the global agenda.

According to the report, energy demand is expected to increase by 40% by 2050. The estimated capital required to meet projected energy demand through to 2030 amount in cumulative terms to US$ 26 trillion.

Of all the energy options, energy efficiency is able to provide the largest capacity for cutbacks in energy demand in the medium term. This potential can be measured in energy savings, cost savings and reduction in emissions.

Research has identified that of the carbon abatement required, 57% could be achieved through implementation of energy efficiency measures by 2030.

Despite commitments to energy efficiency made to date, there is a substantial gap between policy and implementation, challenging the concept of energy efficiency as “low hanging fruit”.

‘The Energy Efficiency: Accelerating the Agenda’ report sought the expertise from over 20 stakeholders across the public and private sectors to create a pulse check on where energy efficiency stands today and address solutions to bridge the gap.

The report reveals reasons behind this gap range from market to institutional failures, which need to be overcome if energy efficiency is to be used to effectively meet rising energy demand, support economic development and meet the critical challenges of climate change, energy security and economic competitiveness.

“Tapping into the largely unrealized potential of energy efficiency will be critical for us to meet growing energy demand of the 21st century without leading to water, food or social crises,” said Pawel Konzal, Head of the Oil & Gas Industry, World Economic Forum.

The report focuses much more on the roles that the varying stakeholder groups can play rather than on identifying industry-specific recommendations in an effort to provide cross-sector market clarity and identify market accountability.

“Energy efficiency remains a big prize, but it cannot be delivered by one set of stakeholders,” said Mark Spelman, Accenture’s Global Head of Strategy.

“To create a step change and capture the potential of energy efficiency, we must ensure a more systematic and rigorous dialogue between the public and private sectors. The private sector can do more for its part by beginning to forge more innovative global alliances. New business models combined with new financing mechanisms to support global scale-up will demonstrate the positive business case for energy efficiency.”

The report’s output formed an integral part of private sessions co-hosted by the World Economic Forum and the Mexican Government at Green Solutions alongside the COP16 negotiations in Cancun, with the ultimate objective to inspire concrete action across stakeholder groups throughout 2011.
——————————————————————————————————————–‘The Energy Efficiency: Accelerating the Agenda’ – Report pdf

I have worked with Accenture (Andersen Consulting) before. Their senior people close the deal, and in the process find out what the client wants to achieve – in most cases a laudable way of working, especially in company mergers, changes in strategic direction, et cetera.

However, with something as contentious as climate whatever, they are just guns for hire, and will produce whatever is required to get the next engagement. They will not return anything that isn’t according to the briefing script. So the fact that they are involved detracts from the veracity of COP16, rather than enhancing it. They are there, so that people can say, “The consultant’s report details …”.

The actual work is done by what we used to call “First Suiters”. In my day, they were armed with clipboards, now it is probably iPads. They wrote down what people told them, and that was what went onto the presentation slides, supported by incomprehensible graphs and diagrams to make it look “scientific”.

I am very sceptical about this because they are saying that energy demand will go up by 40% by 2050 (a forty year horizon – not even Japanese industry plans that far out). They also claim that 57% of the carbon abatement required, can be achieved by energy efficiency by 2030 (a twenty year horizon with a projection of technology that hasn’t been invented yet).

They are just making the numbers up. We don’t even know what the required carbon abatement is, or will be twenty years from now. And, “fifty-seven percent”? Why not “fifty to sixty percent”? Fifty-seven percent is a tad too precise for my liking. They are definitely making the numbers up.

Also, improvements in efficiency has diminishing returns. Any efficiency measures that are possible today, will already be in use if they are cost justified. And, if you know of ways of making something more efficient, then patient it now, get it into production, and make a killing. Don’t wait twenty years to make a dramatic introduction and show a return on the investment.

I haven’t had time to look at the detail of the report and how realistic it is or not as you have done and I’m not sure yet if I will, I’m dissecting the Cancun Agreements first. I was looking at how it fits in the big picture though.

What struck me was the thrust – “Accelerating the Agenda”

And that it was the World Economic Forum moving it.

Obviously there are huge opportunities for fee leverage and position building for consultants when “the Agenda” is global scale and what better way to profit than “Accelerating” it. But it is the climate-economic connection that is salient and we will be seeing more and more of in future. There will be IPCC AR5 climate-economic coupled model submissions for example.

The economic community has not so far been a player of note in the climate change game but all that has changed with this type of report. The economic modelers would love to get some of the action that the climate modelers have been getting for years and the potential for policy influence from climate-economic coupled model output will be magnified considerably – and so will the miss-allocated resources.

I see this (and other similar developments) as economics muscling in on the climate change action via:-

# Energy
# National economies
# Modelling
# Any other way possible

The scope is enormous and of course the UN will be accommodating.

Aside re your work with Accenture, I was working with a Power Board in NZ that was restructured to a Company back in the 80s. Arthur Young was engaged to facilitate the transition to the new organisation. It soon became apparent that they didn’t have a clue and that the new Company divisions did not match the anticipated environment. Sure enough, the Company had to be re-re-structured within 18 months and the CEO was “let go” not long after (went to a similar electricity transition at Newcastle).

“Just before dawn overnight in Mexico the UN got its mojo back in terms of taking action on pollution and climate change,” John Connor [a lawyer] of The Climate Institute [staff made up of assorted lawyers, NGO followers, P.R. 'COP15'marketing types] told reporters in Sydney.

“Australia is coming into 2011, the year the Prime Minister said would be the year of action on pollution and climate change.
“We need now to not only meet international commitments, but to remain competitive, to put a price on pollution and to have a flexible mechanism to increase that ambition as years come.”
“It’s really time Australia got cracking with some action here and that’s the challenge for the Australian parliament so we can match international efforts.”

The UK’s first commercial scale CCS facility – a plant at a colliery in Yorkshire that would capture carbon and then pump it for burial in old gas-wells under the North Sea – has itself gone under after failing to raise the £635 million needed to fund its construction.